Why Clem can't shoot this person?
Why Clementine can't just shoot Arvo?
I'm a huge fan of this game. I love it, i admit it. Almost every aspect seems nearly perfect to me.
However, there is one thing, that annoys me much. In season 2, episode 5 "No Going Back", when Mike (and Bonnie - if alive) betrays the group and steals all the supplies, Clementine confronts the thieves and can draw her gun on them, but surprisingly, she cannot fire.
**Why Clementine can't shoot Arvo first in order to avoid being shot and prevent the robbery? It would be the right choice and the obvious thing to do, wouldn't it? **
Since Clem was able to sneak upon the robbers and draw the gun first, she had the upper hand. It make no sense why was she taken down without a chance to fight back?
Shooting Mike or Bonnie could probably result in Clem being shot by Arvo anyway, but it's pretty obvious that taking down Arvo means winning the confrontation and avoiding getting wounded, since Bonnie and Mike were unarmed. Shooting Arvo would lead Clem to decide Mike's (and Bonnie's) fate [kill them or let them go].
So, i'm asking, why the game don't allow player to make Clem at least to try firing the gun during that confrontation? Why there is no such option? I find it unfair, exaggeratedly dramatic and frustrating to the point that it unfavorably affects the game experience. Although, i enjoyed both seasons very much, the lack of that particular option left me a bad impresion at the very end of season two.
I adress this questions to writters of the 5 episode: Nick Breckon and Pierre Shorette, but i would also like to ask other players for opinion. I wonder if many of them feel the same.
What do you guys think about it? Feel free to let me know.
Comments
Because plot.
How else would they have that unneeded Kenny VS Jane fight if Clem wasn't knocked out for a long time to separate the group and get them far away in terrible weather?
Clem Shoots Mike
I think the writers thought it would lessen the impact of the "final death," of Kenny or Jane. Just like how Season 1 ended with Clem shooting Lee, Season 2 would end with Clem shooting either Kenny or Jane.
Yeah it is kind of odd that you cannot shoot anyone. Originally, you could kill Mike, but Telltale decided to change it at the last moment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q45tDrgmSow
Why did they change it to save Mike over someone like Nick or Sarah? Seriously. The dude was nothing.
Well no, without hindsight you would have no idea in that situation whether Arvo is going to shoot you, until he actually does shoot you. I think most people were shocked he did shoot Clem, including Arvo himself and he looked sorry he'd done it as soon as he had. Also shooting someone with a gun wouldn't necessarily stop them from shooting you after you've shot them. Also, he's a kid for goodness' sake and I don't go around shooting and possibly murdering kids if I don't have to.
Because nobody expected Arvo to actually shoot her. Only we, the player, can understanding why he shot her after analyzing everything between the two. It's the way the story plays out and the player can only have so much control as to what happens next.
Why would you want to shoot Arvo? He was the 3rd best character in the game. How weird of you to want to kill him! #командаArvo!
IKR!!!!!
Best? Are you kidding me? How is he the best after:
-He accused you for robbing even though you didn't
-He tried to kill everybody
-He shot you even though you were nice to him all the time
Did you really ask that question? YOU KNOW WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-He accused you for robbing even though you didn't
-He tried to kill everybody
-He shot you even though you were nice to him all the time
I guess I was trying to give him a second chance
Arvo deserves no chance
Just as in the First Season to give different options to choose how the character would do in different situations - human, rigidly neutral.
Therefore, even when Clementine tough situation would not have killed Mike.
Avro is just a Kid and you don't have to shoot him? Seriously?
You've gotta be kidding, that kid shot Clem! That kid accuses Clem and Jane of stealing supplies even if they don't. That Kid is a member of a russian gang that attempts to rob and murder the whole group. Regardless how you treat him, that kid acts as your enemy and stays hostile all the time. That kid tries to lure the group into a thin ice trap.That kid convinced Mike (and Bonnie) to treachery. They are stealing everything from the group that have a baby. They try to steal the truck, leaving AJ, Clementine, Kenny and Jane to die from cold and starvation. When they are caught red handed, that kid draws a rifle at Clem and tries to murder her with cold blood, no matter what she says or does.
For me, it was quite obvious and predictable that Arvo will try to kill Clem in order to get away. I wasn't shocked nor surprised. Just angry, that I coudn't do the right thing, because stupid gameplay doesn't have such option. That kid deserves nothing more than brutal and painful death.
The first thing that comes to mind during that confrontation is to put several bullets through his head or die trying.
And you suggest it is wrong to shoot him in self defense?
Nope. Killing Arvo and deciding the fate of Mike (and Bonnie) wouldn't change the plot. Not even a little bit.
After what they've done, Mike and Bonnie can't be trusted, so even in the best case scenario they must be exiled from the group. They can also run away (with or without supplies) .
This leads to the very same outcome. Kenny, Jane, AJ and Clem are going north in the truck. The only difference is that Clementine doesn't have a gunshot wound in her chest and a blood stain on her jacket.
Actually I saw it coming long before it happened. I actually tried to let Kenny execute him right after the fight with his group. Letting him live was a really, really bad choice and was always going to be. I would have killed him at our first meeting when we were with Jane just because of the bad feeling I got from him.
I personally preferred to play my Clem as if she was a sociopath.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that this seriously bothered. Arvo actually had the gun and already made it clear he was by no means fond of Clementine there was no reason not to shoot him.
Arvo was the start of a blemish conundrum that the writers made up last second that ended up being the lowest points in Season 2. Him showing up and robbing the group just felt so forced and stitched together in order to create contrived drama and conflict to build up to a cliffhanger ending which really didn't count for much in the end. Shame because this specific situation and so many other things could have been great with effort put into it. Season 2 might have been the greatest idea Telltale ever had but the most poorly executed
Thanks for the videos. Yeah, on the PS3 version of "No Going Back", it was possible for Mike to be killed through a "Shoot Mike" choice but it was cut and changed with "Ask to leave with Mike" (WTF, Telltale Games?). It makes no sense why they've done it.
Seems frustrating that now in PC version Clem can't do nothing better than screaming.
It was much better when Telltale left us a chance to kill Mike at least. Being shot by these scumbags without even a chance to fight back is pretty dumb.
Well, it is better to be a sociopath than a helpless victim, i guess.
As for myself, when playing Lee and Clementine i did everything i could to teach my Clem how to be brave and how to never hesitate to pull the trigger in order to protect the people she cares about.
My Clem had what it takes to do the right thing. After all the lessons, after all bright examples of true heroism, after all she's been through and all the badassness she gained on the way, inability to shoot Arvo in order to protect herself and the group, was a huge disappointment to me, and an insult to my Clem.
i already had the gun out and if it was up to me i would have shot arvo the moment he grabbed the gun, they were stealing everything we had, and the last time somebody stole our vehicle (vernon) it went really bad afterwards.
but clementine needed to get shot because... story
To be fair he shoots you because he's been extremely physically abused by the people you run with, and you in that moment seem to him a the only obstacle from him escaping that abuse.
He's on edge and in a very bad mental state, not sure we can blame he himself for that so much. I mean, Lee shot someone for sleeping with his wife, while knowing nothing of the circumstances of it, and people are fine putting that down to rage rather than a point against Lee's character.
Not just Arvo but also Bonnie and Mike.
I am ok with you , it's a deception about this scene but the death of mike gave me more pleasure... the revenge , the new clementine , the eviltine in all it's glory
No one cares if Lee killed someone before all.
That's my point. Why should we hate Arvo and want to murder him for shooting someone when in an appalling mental state, but not hate Lee for doing the same?
Because he's the protagonist, and regardless of their actions we generally take their side by default in order to be invested in their story, else we wouldn't give a damn about whether they live or die.
Imagine if Lee's wife was the protagonist and we played the story through her eyes, most players would automatically forgive her for cheating on her husband and assume that Lee got what's coming to him instead upon being arrested for killing the senator in a fit of rage.
Arvo tried to kill Clementine regardless. What if he did kill Clem? You would forgive him? Anyone who shoots, manipulates, beats Clementine is DEAD.
Saying it's just because he's the protagonist admits its a moral double standard, which was my point.
Arvo's also my third favorite character as well.
I did. It was almost guaranteed he'd harm someone. I wouldn't have killed him but in real life carrying more people around is stupid. I'd let him go.
Yeah, I wish there was an option to shoot Arvo. I don't think Mike and Bonnie had a Weapon and even if they did, the same would happen to Clem as if Arvo shot her. Arvo looked as if he had the only weapon, so shooting him would therefore cripple their little thieving scheme.
Anyway, screw Arvo, if Lee was there he would have destroyed Arvo. Oh Leeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Still not over the fact they were willing to leave Clem and AJ with two people they themselves considered to be psychopaths. The lowest of lows.
That's not the same thing. There is a huge difference. Lee's actions can be explained and justified. There is no way to justify Arvo and acts that he committed. There are no moral double standards.
So I'm not the only one?
You're wrong. Lee at least had some reason to kill that senator (i bet that guy deserved).
How can you even compare a hero like Lee to such scumbag as Arvo? Killing some corrupt politician who slept with your wife doesn't carry the same weight as killing little girl like Clementine, especially if she's innocent.
Even if Clem would be kind to Arvo, sides with him, and defends him all the time, he is still trying to rob and murder her twice. He's hostile, no matter what, and Clementine did nothing to deserve being robbed or shot. Arvo is a douchebag and he's a lot worse than Carver in my book.
And what about the ambush if Clem wasn't taking his meds? How will you explain Arvo's lies that caused the firefight between both groups?
As for his time in captivity, there were no abuse, it was justice. Arvo was a bandit and he was treated accordingly. Contrary to Lee, Arvo, can't be justified and deserves to be shot to death (same applies to Mike and Bonnie).
I wan't to kill Arvo And I'm ok with you The_Wayfarer
if don't delete to kill Mike you kill Mike and Bonnie
Ikr. Arvo is the stupidest kid I've ever seen. How come he deserves peace and chances? Why would anyone forgive him after he shot Clem? Arvo really needs to die.
So you think Lee is a dumbass more than Arvo? WTF? Lee killed the senator for a good reason, he slept with Lee's wife. He deserved that. Arvo shot Clem cause he had such a stupid reason. Arvo is no one to be forgiven. He needs to die.
I still don't understand why you like him.